ACE 8021:
Sustainable Development &
Environmental Change
Some Economics
<>Semester 1,
2011.
Thursday 10th November, 09.00 - 10.00, Bedson
TC, B.32 & 15.00
- 16.00 Agric. Bldg. 3.02
The Curriculum Brief: "Measuring Sustainability - Economic
Indicators" However, there is no sensible way of listing or discussing
economic indicators without an appreciation of economic systematics.
1.
Cost Benefit
Analysis:
Basic Refs: OECD: 2007
Policy Brief: Assessing Environmental Policies;
OECD, Cost Benefit Analysis & the Environment - Recent
Developments, 2006 (Executive Summary)
Principles:
- ANY decision (Policy, Strategy or Practice)
to do something involves, at
least
implicitly, giving up the chance to do something else or different -
there is an opportunity cost
to doing things;
- Decisions on what to do should take account
of the preferences of everyone
affected (all stakeholders).
Implications (Key
Questions):
- What difference does the Policy or Practice (PP) make?
to
make a "sensible" decision about whether or not to do something, we
should try to identify
and measure all the effects of the
thing in comparison with conditions without doing it,
- What are the Costs & Benefits relative
to doing nothing? and then value these
additional effects (both costs and benefits) on society's behalf (i.e.
find the
values which most accurately reflect what society is willing to pay (for the
benefits) or willing to
accept (in compensation, for the costs).
- Do the Benefits outweigh the
Costs? does the
project or policy meet the EFFICIENCY criterion - that the benefits
sufficiently outweigh the costs (in comparison with things
which would otherwise be done) to make the policy or project
worthwhile, from the point of view of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. It thus
requires careful and systematic
accounting, measurement and estimation of all costs
and benefits in a single commensurate (comparable) unit (= money).We
could, then,
see if the benefits outweighed the costs, and thus determine whether or
not the project or thing is actually worth doing, and, furthermore, if
done for all the things we might do, we could then rank the relative
net benefits of our options, and arrive at some priorities. =>
There is NO
sensible alternative to CBA (if you disagree - on what basis?)
Why is
it
necessary?
- Because Markets do not always work. If ALL
the effects of the PP relevant to the WELFARE of everyone
affected were "properly" priced in free markets (properly reflecting
the
marginal costs and marginal benefits to society - with no externalities
or
'spillovers') and if PERFECT COMPETITION prevails in all economic
activities, then CBA would not be necessary - the market signals would,
under these conditions, correctly determine the EFFECTIVE &
EFFICIENT
outcome - not only doing the "right" things, but also doing things "right"
(i.e. as effectively and efficiently as possible) - as judged by the
users and consumers But
these conditions do not hold. Private benefits
≠ Social benefits, because of externalities (see below) and missing or
imperfect markets;
Private costs ≠ Social costs (the opportunities foregone by society in
using the extra resources and inputs involved in the PP). Nevertheless,
the concept of the market, where all productive and consumption
activities are effectively reconciled, is central to the CBA approach -
which is fundamentally an economic approach.
Note:
the general efficiency of
the market system is derived from a consideration of the
general
equilibrium of a society with limited resources and, therefore,
the
need to choose between alternative outcomes (how much to produce, of
what, for whom?) - there is no such
thing as a free lunch. This general equilibrium between
the productive capacity of the economy (its production possibility
frontier) and the social preferences for the products and services (the
indifference or utility map, reflecting the social welfare function)
generates a set of (shadow or implicit)
relative prices for all goods and services, which reflect both the
opportunity costs of producing one good in terms of another (the
'supply' price) and the
rate at which consumers and users are willing to trade off one with
another (the 'demand' price).
In equilibrium, these supply & demand prices will be equal; supply
curves (the relationship between quantities supplied and prices
necessary to recompense the suppliers) slope upwards (higher prices
needed to secure additional supplies of any one good or service);
demand curves (relating the quantities demanded by consumers and users
with the prices they are willing to pay (in terms of giving up other
goods and services) slope downwards. Furthermore, it follows that
communities, regions, countries etc. will be
better off specialising
and trading with each other (according to their comparative
advantage)
than trying to be self-sufficient. (
See
here for more explanation of this general economic theory)
Hence, CBA is generally required when
markets fail - they do NOT
generate the socially desirable outcomes, and we need to assess what
the desirable outcomes are, and the extent to which they are more
desirable than what otherwise occurs. The major
market failures are:
externalities; public goods.
What
are its limits? There are many
practical
difficulties with implementing CBA (below), but a principal limitation
is that the necessary accounting in terms of money units necessarily
assumes something about the value of money itself to each and all the
affected parties (which, typically, is everyone in society in one way
or another, as either consumers and/or taxpayers (tax
recipients)) - everyone, ultimately, is a stakeholder in
everything. The traditional presumption is that DISTRIBUTION
DOES NOT MATTER (that £1
worth of gain to one can be treated as exactly commensurate with
£1 worth of cost to another). It follows, then, that the
losers from a project or policy can, at least in principle, be compensated by the winners (the
costs can be covered by the benefits) and still leave everyone better
off than before - the benefits exceed the costs, which might mean
making the rich richer and the poor poorer (unless the losers are
actually compensated). CBA is NOT (ordinarily)
concerned with EQUITY of outcome.
However, more modern and
sophisticated applications (see, e.g., OECD, 2006, above) now DO take
some account of equity and
distribution, by weighting the poors' costs and benefits at a higher
rate than the rich (because an extra £1 is of more value to the
poor than to the rich (though this leaves on one side the question of
whether the poor can be expected to use their extra £s more
'socially responsibly' than the rich)).
What does sustainability
mean? You already have a number of
definitions - but here is one which you may not have seen before:
"Note also that the (Bruntland) Commission's definition is directed at
sustaining the factors that go to meet needs. In their view
"sustainable development" requires that relative to their populations
each generation should bequeath to its successor at least as large a
quantity of what may be called an economy's "productive base" as it had
itself inherited from its predecessor. That raises another problem with
the Commission's reasoning: it does not explain how the productive base
should be measured.
We take the view that economic development should be evaluated in terms
of its contribution to intergenerational well-being. Specifically, we
identify sustainable development with economic paths along which
intergenerational well-being does not decline. In view of what is
already known about the relationship between real national income and
social well-being in a timeless economy, we should expect that there is a measure
of an economy's productive base that reflects intergenerational
well-being. We show below that intergenerational well-being
would not decline over a specified time-period if and only if
a comprehensive
measure of the economy's wealth were not to decline over the
same period. By wealth we mean the
social worth of an economy's entire productive base. Because the
productive base consists of the entire range of factors that determine
intergenerational well-being, we will sometimes refer to wealth as
comprehensive wealth.
What are the raw ingredients of wealth? It is intuitive that an
economy's productive base comprises the entire range of capital assets
to which people have access. Wealth therefore includes not only
reproducible capital goods (roads, buildings, machinery and
equipments), human capital (health, education, skills), and natural
capital (ecosystems, minerals and fossil fuels); but also population
(size and demographic profile), public knowledge, and the myriad of
formal and informal institutions that influence the allocation of
resources. We will see presently that reproducible capital, human
capital, and natural capital enter quantitative estimates of
sustainable development in a somewhat different way from population,
public knowledge, and institutions." (Arrow et al.
November, 2010, p2)
Key Problems and Issues:
- Identification of
the
complete effects of the policy/project - what does this PP do which
would otherwise not happen, and who is affected, and what additional
resources are used, and what would these resources have done otherwise?
- the importance of:
- a) the counter-factual
situation - the situation without the policy or project;
- b)
the systematic and coherent representation of the
bio-physical and social systems which determine these counter-factual
situations. i.e,
we need to make full use of our understandings of the science and
social science (economic flows of
income and spending and their interactions through market transactions,
if nothing else).
- Externalities:
(this link provides some more detail) - those effects of the
PP which are NOT accounted for in market transactions, which happen as
side-effects, like pollution, or production of good/bad landscapes, or
better/worse natural environments. These are known as market failures
and need to be
accounted for and valued somehow. The link provides an outline of
tradable pollution permits versus taxes or regulation as ways of
controlling pollution (a classic externality)
- Valuation of the costs and
benefits: (are current market prices sufficient/accurate? or are
they non-existent or distorted)? -> shadow prices (and shadow or
purchasing power parity (equilibrium) exchange rates);
and, what are the spillovers - will prices elsewhere change as
a consequence of the PP, and if so, how, and with what effects? - e.g
the biofuels fiasco (see below)
- Discounting:
Since most PPs have effects and costs which are spread over long
periods of time, we need to be able to convert future values of benefits and costs
to present values in order to
make comparisons and trade-offs. Discounting
is the procedure used to
do this, and involves discounting
(or reducing) values or costs accruing at future dates to their present
values.
The justification for discounting
is
twofold:
- a) people
generally need to be rewarded for waiting - ρ - time preference
rates are typically supposed to show that the present is more
valuable
than the future - e.g. we do not save all our income for the future,
but use most of it now, implying (perhaps) that the future is less
valuable to us
than the present - or more simply that we have to live today and
survive until
tomorrow by consuming (eating) today, in order to be alive to reap any
benefits tomorrow;
- b) there is an opportunity cost of
capital (investment funds) r
- £1 invested now will earn
interest - it will generate more than £1 in the future - so, by
implication, future benefits could be achieved by some alternative
present investment (e.g. in government bonds).
To compare any
future benefits with present options, therefore, implies that the
future benefits should be discounted
to their present value using the interest rate (r* below) to be
earned
on the alternative secure investment opportunity (the rate of
interest earned on government bonds, say). However, there
are major
questions to be asked about what the appropriate discount rate is, and,
especially, whether this rate should be constant - applying equally to
all future dates. There is, as we shall see below, particular
dispute about the appropriate discount rate to use for
inter-generational comparisons (long lived or far off effects and
costs).
Note on
Intergenerational Discounting: We can presume a social welfare
function, in which
social welfare is a function of consumption (in turn depending on
income and production). If the welfare function is assumed (for
convenience) to exhibit a constant
elasticity of marginal utility of
consumption (see below) , and we also assume a constant
population and a
constant rate of growth of consumption (g) per generation,
then the appropriate social discount
rate, (sometimes referred to as the Utility or
Consumption discount rate) δ,
by which consumption of future
generations (and thus their income and costs) should be discounted is
classically expressed as:
δ = ρ + gη (sometimes known as the
Ramsey equation
after the economist who first derived the expression, in 1928)
- where ρis the social
rate of time preference (the rate
at which future generation's utility or welfare is discounted against
the present generation, simply because
it is in the future) - note, this is often associated with peoples'
willingness to save for future consumption, though because it actually
refers to inter-generational utility comparisons, this association is
actually inappropriate here.
- g is the projected growth
rate of average consumption - as a measure of the change in welfare
expected so long as growth continues,
- and η is the
elasticity of the social weight
attributed
to a change in consumption - the percentage rate at which marginal
(i.e. extra or additional) utility (welfare) falls for every percentage
increase in consumption - since it is typically argued that an extra or
additional unit of economic welfare is of lower value than the average
value of current consumption (more is better, but not as better as
some). Typically, a value of 2 or 3 is assigned to this elasticity - a
1
point change in the growth rate of consumption (welfare) reduces the
marginal value of consumption (welfare) - the value of the additional
welfare - by 2 to 3 points
Notice, especially, that this classical social discount rate refers to
comparisons between
generations, and not
to individual time preference rates or utility functions (preference
behaviours or attitudes).
For example, Pearce
and Ulph,
1995, argue that a rate of between 2 and 4% is appropriate, with
the
lower end of the range being more defensible - incidentally quoting
Stern himself (see below) in an earlier incarnation as arguing for much
higher
rates.
2. Climate Change - the
ultimate
challenge to CBA?
The Stern
Review: The Economics of Climate Change, 2006, is probably the most
prominent "CBA" ever conducted, to examine the issue of what should be
done about Climate Change.
There is, of course, a number of issues involved:
- Is climate change happening or likely to happen?
- If so, is human activity the cause?
- What are the possible consequences if we do nothing
about it?
- What can be done to mitigate CC, and what are the costs?
- What are the costs (and benefits) of simply coping with
it?
- What, then, should we be doing?
- Why are we not doing this already and what needs to
change or be
changed for the appropriate social and human response?
The science :
Notwithstanding the complexity, and hence essential unpredictability of
the global climate and feedback systems, the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports (from the IPCC's
4th Assessment Report,
2007, Summary for Policymakers) that:
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level;
- Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows
that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate
changes, particularly temperature increases.
- Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since
pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004
- Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and
now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning
many thousands of years.
- Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG
concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except
Antarctica)
The answers to questions 1 & 2 are yes and yes, according
to the
IPCC and many others. But, see
below.
The IPCC uses a set of possible scenarios (SRES)
depicting world growth and development trajectories:
- A1. Very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in
mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new
and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are
convergence among regions, capacity building and increased cultural and
social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional
differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario family develops into
three groups that describe alternative directions of technological
change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by
their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non fossil
energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B) (where
balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy
source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all
energy supply and end use technologies).
- A2. Self reliance and preservation of local identities.
Fertility
patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in
continuously increasing population. Economic development is primarily
regionally oriented
and per capita economic growth and technological change more fragmented
and slower.
- B1. A convergent world with the same global population, that
peaks in midcentury and declines thereafter, as in A1, but with rapid
change in economic structures toward a service and information economy,
with reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and
resource efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to
economic, social and environmental sustainability, including improved
equity, but without additional climate initiatives.
- B2. Local solutions to economic, social and environmental
sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global
population, at a rate lower than A2, intermediate levels of economic
development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than
in B1 and A1. While the scenario is also oriented towards environmental
protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels.
Under these scenarios, the projections of global warming are as follows
(from the Policymakers Summary, p 10, SPM.7, lower panel)

[Dots and bars indicate the best estimate and likely ranges of warming
assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios for 2090-2099 relative to
1980-1999.]
This level of warming will, according to the IPCC, have considerable
effects (see report). In particular "Altered frequencies and intensities of
extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have
mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems."
In addition:
- "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for
centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and
feedbacks, even if GHG
concentrations were to be stabilised."
- "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible,
depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
- However, "Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by
mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to
three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve
lower stabilisation levels."
- But: "Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the
opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the
risk of more severe climate change impacts."
The IPCC
report includes assessments of the consequences (see report,
p10ff), some of which may be positive (e.g. increased cereal
productivity in the temperate latitudes for at least a limited degree
of warming, though declines for more substantial (>3oC
warming)), but mostly negative c.f. present conditions. It also warns
of the increased possibilities of abrupt and irreversible changes, such
as melting of the Greenland (and West Antarctic) icecaps, raising sea
levels by 6-7 metres, and exacerbating warming to + 5 - 6oC,
or, less likely but possible, the elimination of the Gulf Stream.
The
Stern Review draws implications and conclusions from existing
research, rather than conducting new research. Furthermore, it is
a government report, rather than a traditional scientific study, and
was produced very quickly (for what it is). As Nordhaus (below) notes:
"it is not a standard analysis" but a government report
which emphasises the facts and evidence (including previous research)
which supports the required conclusion - to do something about climate
change, and was not subject to the usual scientific processes of
peer review prior to publication, nor is strictly reproducable (the
analysis is not sufficiently
elaborated as to be replicable) - in part, because it is a 'review' and
not a stand-alone, independent analysis. It has drawn a considerable
amount of criticism and 'peer review' since publication. The
following notes distill the key aspects from some of the reviews:
The Social Science?
- The Stern Review (SR), and
reviews of the review.
- What are the possible consequences if we do nothing
about it?
- What can be done to mitigate CC, and what are the costs?
- What are the costs (and benefits) of simply coping with
it?
- What, then, should we be doing?
- Why are we not doing this already and what needs to
change or be
changed for the appropriate social and human response?
Critical Factors
in
assessing/recommending Climate Change policies
- Emissions of CO2 and other
trace gases are almost irreversible
- they stay in the upper atmosphere for centuries, so
reducing
emissions today is very valuable for the distant future, while
continuing emissions generate cumulative damages in
the future -
indicating that we are in a hole, so we should stop digging;
- Global warming is truly global - it is the externality
and public good
(bad) par excellence
- The possible outcomes are highly uncertain.
People (and, perhaps especially their governments and governors) prefer
to avoid risk (and hence are willing to pay for insurance and hold
precautionary stocks of food etc.). This means, in this context,
that we are (likely to be) willing to pay more to avoid, and to be more
concerned about, the possibilities of catastrophe than a 'simple'
evaluation of the mean (average) possible outcome would suggest.
- The outcomes will occur in the distant future - 25
years and more
from now (notwithstanding that more recent science appears to indicate
that the warming effects may happen sooner rather than later) -
requiring special consideration of the appropriate discount rate through which to
compare future costs and benefits (of climate change amelioration) with
today's costs of doing so.
- Inequitable Distribution:
The effects of global warming will be inequitably
distributed -
the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most.
Consequences of doing nothing (according to Stern) :
- Permanent cost of 0 - 3% GDP Stern's
assessment of the evidence is, in briefest of outlines, as
follows: The costs of 2-3oC
warming have been
modeled as generating a permanent cost (loss) of 0 - 3% of global GDP compared with no climate change.
- But greater warming - 5-6oC
by 2100 could generate losses of 5 - 10% in global GDP (accounting for
abrupt and large scale effects), with poor countries suffering
more
than 10%. Overall, SR 'estimates' that the impacts and risks of
CC under a
'business as usual' (BAU) scenario, (and discounting future values to
present day terms) "are equivalent to an average reduction in global
per-capita consumption of at least 5% now and for ever" (Exec Summary,
p x). This estimate is
based on an Integrated Assessment
Model
(IAM), specifically in this case the PAGE model**, which is,
essentially,
a macroeconomic growth model with a controllable externality of
endogenous greenhouse warming - the effects of economic growth affect
climate change and vice versa.
** Note: However,
Tol & Yohe point
out (p 237) that this particular model is rather atypical of such
models in two important respects: a) PAGE allows for only a 5%
probability that CC effects are net positive in the short run, while
other models of this type put the probability at closer to 10%; b) PAGE
assumes that vulnerability to CC is
independent of development,
though
we 'know' that adaptive capacity and, thus, net sensitivity to CC is
very site specific and path dependent - it
does depend on development.]
- + 3 More Adjustments: However, there
are (according to SR) three
major factors which
are not properly dealt with in this model, each of which is important
in determining the overall damage which CC can do:
- accounting for the non-market
effects (externalities) of CC on (especially) health
and
environment increases this loss from at least 5% to 11% of
GDP
- including more recent estimates of
climate change effects with
increased feedbacks and more rapid and higher temperature changes adds
a further 3% to the annual loss figure
- adjusting for inequity - the fact that
these effects are
disproportionately imposed on the poorest of the world increases the
overall loss in annual terms to 20% of world GDP (i.e. SR
makes a substantial
allowance for the utility or welfare of the poor being more valuable
than that of the rich by, in effect, adding a further 6% to the overall
cost).
- "In summary, analyses that take into account the full ranges of
both impacts and possible outcomes - that is employ the basic economics
of risk - suggest that BAU climate change will reduce welfare by an
amount equivalent to a reduction in consumption per head of between 5
and 20%. Taking account of the increasing scientific evidence of
greater risks, aversion to possibilities of catastrophe, and of a
broader approach to the consequences than implied by narrow output
measures, the appropriate estimate is likely to be in the upper part of
this range." (Exec. Sum., p x).
Cost of doing something: Stablising
emissions at 550ppm CO2equivalent
(which could limit increasing temperatures to 2-3oC)
requires global emissions to peak in the next 10 - 20 years, and then
fall at at least 1 - 3% per year (from present (2000) emissions of 40Gt
CO2e peaking at about 60, and
then falling to 20 Gt CO2e by
2100.
The costs of doing this are estimated "to be around
1% of
GDP by
2050" (p xii) "with a range from -1% (net gains) to +3.5%"
(p xiv) by
2050, estimated from a sectoral consideration of the possibilities for
mitigation, where the net gain results from adopting more efficient
energy use systems and processes, or with "a range of -2% to +5%"
estimated from a meta-analysis of a range of macro-economic models (p
xiv/xv) Furthermore, "There is a high price to delay. Delay in
taking action would
make it necessary to accept both more climate change and, eventually,
higher mitigation costs. Weak action in the next 10-20 years would put
stabilisation at 550ppm beyond reach - and this level is already
associated with significant risks." (p xv)
Bottom line:
costs @ 1% GDP versus benefits of the order of 5 - 20%
GDP = very strong case to do something (a lot) now. CB
ratio of 5 -
20:1. Alternatively, SR estimates (preliminary calculations) that
the
BAU costs are "of the order of $85 per tonne CO2e"
(p xvi), while starting "in the region of $25-30 per tonne CO2e"
to achieve a target of 500ppm (p xvii), where the "social cost of
carbon is likely to increase steadily over time because the marginal
damages increase with the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere, and that
stock rises over time." [But this seems to imply a rather lower
CB ratio (85/27.5 = 3:1)]
Key
Points of contention.
- climate change effects are exaggerated
& damage
estimates
are extreme
- costs of mitigation are
substantially underestimated
- the future is given too much
weight (the discount rate is too low)
- the costs and benefits are not
commensurately measured or
considered
Climate Change & effects are
exaggerated?
Acknowledgment
of the "fact" of climate change due to anthropogenic (human) causes is not unanimous.
Plenty of people, who should know, dispute the concensus. A
flavour of
the reasons for being doubtful can be seen from a look at the global
carbon balance (from the Woods Hole Research Centre,
(One Pg [petagram]=one billion metric tonnes=1000 x one billion kg)

Notice, first,
how relatively small
in comparsion with both sinks and other flows are the flows of Carbon
into the atmosphere from the buring of coal and gas (the major
anthropogenic sources of carbon emissions, apart from changes in land
use, such as the burning of forests and cultivation of 'virgin' soils
etc. - at about 1.5Pg/year). It is interesting to note, also,
that one
person breathing for a year produces, on its own, about 1 tonne of CO2,
which with a global population of, presently, about 6 billion,
translates to approximately 2Pg per year, rising inexorably to 3Pg by
2050 as the world's population grows.
Second, as noted by
the Woods Hole Research Centre, "Attention
on the global carbon cycle over more than 30 years has focused on the
apparent imbalance in the carbon budget - the so-called "missing sink," missing
because the accumulation of carbon has not been observed. The average
annual emissions of 8.5 PgC during the 1990s (6.3± 0.4 Pg from
combustion of fossil fuels and 2.2± 0.8 Pg from changes in land
use)
are greater than the sum of the annual accumulation of carbon in the
atmosphere (3.2 ± 0.2) and the annual uptake by the oceans (2.4
± 0.7
PgC/yr). An additional sink of 2.9 PgC/yr is required for balancing the
budget."
Third, Global warming
is also a consequence of changes in solar
activity, and (McKitrick),
and there is room to doubt that the present 'concensus' account of the
influence of changes in solar activity over the recent past is as
reliable as suggested by the IPCC. There are also (McKitrick
notes)
strong reasons to question the particular measurements of ground level
temperatures and trends used by the IPCC to demonstrate the recent
warming.
The Fourth ground for
questioning the IPPC concensus, also documented by McKitrick, is,
perhaps, the most critical. The
evidence might not match the models (though see here
for some papers about the correspondence). According to the
Global Climate Models
representation of the climate system, the one unique signature
of CO2 forcing of climate change (global warming) is a
significant
rise in the tropical tropospheric temperature, which does not occur as
a consequence of solar radiation change. However, there, as yet, no
sign of this supposed signature actually happening in practice. As
McKitrick notes (p 14) quoting the US Climate Change Science Programme:
"For global averages, models and
observations generally show overlapping rectangles. A potentially
serious inconsistency, however, has been identified in the tropics. ..
the lower troposphere warms more rapidly than the surface in almost all
model simulations, while, in the majority of observed data sets, the
surface has warmed more rapidly than the lower troposphere. In fact,
... the models that show best agreement with the observations are those
that have the lowest (and probably unrealistic) amounts of
warming." As
McKitrick comments: "Take out the “probably unrealistic” gloss and this
is an admission of something pretty significant. The IPCC makes almost
no mention of the issue. Had there been evidence of rapid warming in
the tropical troposphere, the data would have been presented in a
prominent format, accompanied by extensive discussion. The decision to
downplay this topic is another indicator of the biased editorial hand
guiding the final report." McKitrick concludes: "the
core writing team of the IPCC Report shares a single point of view,
that its members are alert and predisposed towards evidence that
confirms it, and they are unreceptive or openly hostile to evidence
that contradicts it. Whether the reader agrees or not, take it as read,
for the moment, that there is a problem of bias." See Here for
an independent summary of the IPCC evidence (hosted by Ross McKitrik).
The damage of climate change:
SR Estimates $314/tC ($85/tCO2) versus other
estimates ranging from
$50/tC - $360/tC.
Putting these figures into context, $50/tC is about equivalent to
$12/barrel of oil while $360/tC is about $84/barrel of oil ($200/tC =
$47/barrel) The world oil price has climbed from about $40/barrel
in 2006 ($20 in 2003) to > $100 in 2008, and has now fallen back to
$86 (October, 2008)
Are the damage estimates of BAU extreme? SR is often criticised (e.g
World Economics reviews below) for taking the most pessimistic
estimates for both the biophysics of climate change and of the human
consequences, and of taking too little account of adaptation to climate
change, or technological developments to cope with change (including
not accounting for developments in existing health and
productivity for, especially, the poor, which are necessary anyway,
regardless of CC). Further charges are that SR is inconsistent in its
assessment of different sorts of damages and their costs, including
double counting the risk of catastrophic events (hurricane damages
etc.), and presuming that the costs (risks) associated with uncertainty
about actual climate change and its effects do not diminish with time,
as we learn more about the effects and reduce the uncertainty. In
any event, the damage estimates used by SR are considerably greater
than existing economic assessments of the costs of climate change
(which range between -2% (a net benefit) to +5% GDP) - Tol and Yohe)
SR reports marginal
damage costs (see above) as $85 per tonne CO2e,
as the
cost of an additional emission of another tonne, which is
equivalent to $314/tC
(Tol & Yohe), which is an outlier in the marginal damage cost
literature on
climate change (e.g. Tol, 2005, The
marginal damage costs of CO2
emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties", Energy Policy,
33 (16), 2064 - 2074). Even given SR's very low discount rate (see
below), SR's damage costs are high - that is, when other estimates are
adjusted to the same low discount rates, other studies report marginal
damage costs of about $200/tC, with a range from about $50/tC to
$360/tC. Without adjusting for the extreme discount rate, SR's estimate
is at the extreme edge of all studies estimates (up to Dec. 2006),
including those which have not been peer reviewed (Tol and Yohe).
The costs of mitigation:
SR @ 1% GDP
(truncated) versus range of 0 - 7%GDP (permanent).
Tol and Yohe report
that SR's range of emission reduction costs (centering on 1% GDP) is
lower than the range of costs reported (for instance) in the latest
results from the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF21) survey of multiple
models, which range from 0 to 7% GDP, with a mean of 2%. For
2050, EMF21 average cost is 2.2% GDP (though lower at 1.4% if other
GHGs are included as well as CO2).
Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, SR truncates the costs
of mitigation at 2050, and does not consider costs beyond this date (by
which emissions are supposed to be stabilized at 550ppm). EMF21
results show average costs rising to 6.4% (4.8%) by 2100.
In fact, the major source used by SR for its cost estimates has
(worryingly) costs falling from now until 2050 (from $360/tC in 2005 to
$96/tC in 2050). In contrast EMF21 shows these costs rising (and,
incidentally, being much more uncertain) from a very low level to
$360/tC (range 0 - $1850/tC). Costs should rise through time, not fall,
if the discounted
costs of achieving any climate change target are to be minimised
- economic efficiency requires that policies or strategies to reduce
emissions start now modestly and become progressively more stringent
through time, with progressively more substantial reductions in the
medium to longer term - this result follows because: a) the discounting
of the future, but, more importantly because b) technical progress, the
need to replace capital and the carbon cycle itself all work in favour
of rising abatement costs through time from now. In short, SR
uses an apparently sub-optimal abatement cost. Coupled with the
discount rate used (see below), this treatment of costs of mitigation
(low underlying costs, declining costs, and truncation of the horizon)
produce substantially lower abatement costs than the existing
literature suggests.
The
discount rate: SR is low, cf most others.
Stern applies a Social time
preference rate of 0.1%,
(extremely low by conventional standards - more usually 1 - 2% or
greater), which is then combined with a consumption elasticity of 1
(more typically 2 or 3) and assumed growth rates of 2, 1.8 and 1.3% per
head per annum over the next three centuries respectively, producing
(according to the Ramsey formula above) discount rates of 2.1, 1.9 and
1.4
for the next three centuries respectively (though these rates have
taken some additional enquiry to recover, since they are not actually
made explicit in the SR (see Byatt et al (below), p 212). [Under more
conventional assumptions about the consumption elasticity and social
time preference rates, the discount factor would be more like 4%]
As a result, Stern produces very high estimates of the present values
of the damage of future climate
change. While this low discount rate should also increase the present
values of the costs of mitigation, this counterbalance is less
pronounced in SR because of the truncation of the costs considered to
2050. This has been widely criticised (all the reviewers listed below
and
many others).
Most economists think that ρ, the social rate of time preference,
is greater than zero (or 0.1%, as assumed by SR) - otherwise we would
observe people devoting very much higher fractions of their income to
savings for the future that we, in fact, observe (though, note, we are
talking, here, of a social
rather than personal time preference rates, and, furthermore, appeals
to investment behaviour theories sound somewhat hollow when these
theories cannot, presently, account for the 'equity premium' or
'risk-free rate of return' puzzles).
Ken Arrow (below, p 4-5), however,
makes the following compelling argument (my emphasis added):
"Many have complained about the Stern
Review adopting a value of zero
for ρ , the social rate of time preference. However, I find that the
case for intervention to keep CO2 levels
within bounds (say, aiming to stabilize them at about 550 ppm) is
sufficiently strong as to be insensitive to the arguments about ρ . To
establish this point, I draw on some numbers from the Stern Review
concerning future benefits from keeping greenhouse gas concentrations
from exceeding 550 ppm, as well as the costs of accomplishing this.
The benefits from mitigation of
greenhouse gases are the avoided
damages. The Review provides a comprehensive view of these damages,
including both market damages as well as nonmarket damages that account
for health impacts and various ecological impacts. The damages are
presented in several scenarios, but I consider the so-called
High-climate scenario to be the best-based. Figure 6-5c of the Review
shows the increasing damages of climate change on a “business as usual”
policy. By the year 2200, the losses in GNP have an expected value of
13.8% of what GNP would be otherwise, with a .05 percentile of about 3%
and a .95 percentile of about 34%. With this
degree of uncertainty,
the loss should be equivalent to a certain loss of about 20%.
The base rate of growth of the
economy (before calculating the climate
change effect) was taken to be 1.3% per year; a loss of 20% in the year
2200 amounts to reducing the growth rate to 1.2% per year. In other
words, the benefit from mitigating greenhouse gas emissions can be
represented as the increase in the growth rate from today to 2200 from
1.2 % per year to 1.3% per year.
We have to compare this benefit with
the cost of stabilization.
Estimates given in Table 10.1 of the Stern Review range from 3.4% down
to -3.9% of GNP. (Since energy-saving reduces energy costs, this last
estimate is not as startling as it sounds.) Let me assume then that
costs to prevent additional accumulation of CO2 (and equivalents) come
to 1% of GNP every year forever.
Finally, I assume, in accordance with
a fair amount of empirical
evidence, that η, the component of the discount rate attributable to
the declining marginal utility of consumption, is equal to 2. I then
examine whether the present value of benefits (from the increase in the
GDP growth rate from 1.2% to 1.3%) exceeds the present value of the
costs (from the 1% permanent reduction in the level of the GDP time
profile).
A straightforward calculation shows
that mitigation is better than
business as usual — that is, the present value of the benefits exceeds
the present value of the costs — for any social rate of time preference
(ρ) less than 8.5%. No estimate for the pure rate of time preference
even by those who believe in relatively strong discounting of the
future has ever approached 8.5%. These calculations indicate that, even
with higher discounting, the Stern Review’s estimates of future
benefits and costs imply that current mitigation passes a benefit-cost
test. Note that these calculations rely on the Stern Review’s projected
time profiles for benefits and its estimate of annual costs. Much
disagreement surrounds these estimates, and further sensitivity
analysis is called for. Still, I
believe there can be little serious
argument over the importance of a policy of avoiding major further
increases in combustion by-products. "
Note, this is in distinct contrast to the Nordhaus review, which casts
major doubt on the assumption: "The Review's radical revision of the
economics of climate change does not arise from any new economics,
science, or modelling. Rather it depends on the assumption of a near
zero time discount rate combined with a specific utility function. The Review's unambiguous conclusions
about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the
substitution of assumptions which are more consistent with today's
marketplace real interest rates and savings rates. Hence the central
questions about global warming policy - how much, how fast and how
costly - remain open." (p 701)
[Note, however, that SR does
not actually use a discount rate of near zero - just a pure time
preference rate of near zero (0.1%). The actual discount rates
used are 2.1, 1.9 and 1.4 for the next three centuries, respectively -
see above]
Comparability of Costs and Benefits
Tol & Yohe (below) note that SR's estimates of the damage of
climate change are "about eight times those of the CEC (2005)*, while
abatement cost estimates are only about four times as high.
Nonetheless, SR advocates a climate target that is less stringent than does
CEC and devotes no effort to explaining the discrepancy." (T&Y,
below, p. 240).
* CEC (2005): Winning the
battle against global climate change, Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee of the Regions COM (2005) 35 final,
Commission of the European Communities.
Conclusions and Implications (DRH).
What follows
are my own current conclusions about climate change and SR in
particular, I have not (yet) read or thoroughly understood all
the issues and literature on this topic (and probably no one life is
long enough to do so), but I consider that I am sufficiently well
acquainted with the general principles and issues that I can
reach some interim conclusions. The most insightful and helpful
assessment of SR that I have yet read is Weitzman (JEL, 2007), which I strongly recommend,
though it is tough read for non specialists.
While many reviewers of SR are highly critical of the particular
assumptions and choices of damage and abatement cost estimates from the
literature, there remains a reasonable consensus (with some remaining
dissenters) that there are sound reasons to do something now, and
probably more in the near term to avoid the potential for serious
damage in the future as a consequence of man-exacerbated climate
change. However, SR appears to argue strongly for immediate and
severe action to deal with the problem, which is in distinct contrast
to the conventional economic analysis of the problem which recommends
limited action now but progressive 'ramping up' of action through the
medium to long term (20 years from now?). In this sense, SR has
been labeled ' alarmist', and has been heavily criticised - which could
undermine the central message that CC is important and that something
needs to be done.
Tol & Yohe note that the economics of exhaustible resources is
applicable here - delay cannot be an optimal (least cost) approach - we
are already adding to cumulative damage, and any delay increases that
damage (and hence the costs of coping with or ameliorating it).
In short, we are already in a hole, and we should stop digging now,
since the hole will become more, possibly very much more, uncomfortable
and profitable the more we go on digging. To argue otherwise
requires that we be certain
that:
- future GHG atmospheric concentrations will fall despite what we
are now doing, or
- atmospheric GHCs do not cause global warming, or
- global warming will not have net negative effects.
Since there are no
serious scientific grounds for any of these 'certainties', and every
reason to suppose the contrary - we need to start doing something about
it now, especially since, if anything, new and more recent science
strongly suggests that climate change is happening faster and effects
will be felt sooner than previously thought. I (for one)
still believe that this is the case, despite the strong arguments (see,
especially, McKitrick) that the IPCC
has become heavily politicised and that its evidence base for the
proposition that global warming is actually anthropogenic (caused by
human activity) is suspect. Even so, it is surely taking an
unacceptably big risk to believe either that CC is not happening or
that it is not amenable to human action - that reducing our carbon
emissions is a sensible precautionary action.
Weitzman (below) says: "The
Stern Review is a political document— in Keynes’s phrase an essay in
persuasion — at least as much as it is an economic analysis and, in
fairness, it needs ultimately to be judged by both standards. To its
great credit, the Review supports very strongly the politically
unpalatable idea, which no democratic politician planning to remain in
office anywhere wants to hear, that (however it is packaged and
whatever spin is put on it) substantial carbon taxes must be levied
because energy users need desperately to start confronting the
expensive reality that burning carbon has a significant externality
cost that ought to be taken into account by being charged full freight
for doing it. (This is the most central “inconvenient truth” of all,
which was conveniently ignored in Al Gore’s award-winning film.)
An entire chapter 22 in Stern, entitled “Creating a Global
Price for Carbon,” is devoted to this theme. As the Review puts it,
“the pricing of carbon, implemented through tax, trading, or
regulation,” is “required for an effective global response” (p. xvii).
One can only wish that U.S. political leaders might have the wisdom to
understand and the courage to act upon the breathtakingly simple vision
that steady pressure from the predictable presence of a high carbon
price reflecting social costs (whether imposed directly through taxes
or indirectly via tradable permits) would do more to unleash the
decentralized power of capitalistic American inventive genius on the
problem of researching, developing, and finally investing in
economically efficient carbon-avoiding alternative technologies than
all of the piecemeal command-and-control standards and patchwork
subsidies making the rounds in Washington these days."
Contrast this, though, with
a 'give-away' remarks by Nordhaus (below): "How convincing is the
Review’s argument for its social welfare function, consumption
elasticity, and time discount rate? To begin with, there is a major
issue concerning the views that are embodied in the social welfare
function adopted by the Review. The Review takes the lofty vantage
point of the world social planner, perhaps stoking the dying embers of
the British Empire, in determining the way the world should combat the
dangers of global warming. The world, according to Government House
utilitarianism*, should use the combination of time discounting and
consumption elasticity that the Review’s authors find persuasive from
their ethical vantage point."
* The phrase is due to Amartya Sen and Bernard
Williams (1982, p. 16), which they describe as “social arrangements
under which a utilitarian elite controls a society in which the
majority may not itself share those beliefs.” Dasgupta (2005) discusses
Government House ethics in the context of discounting. [Sen,
Amartya, and Bernard Williams, eds. 1982.
Utilitarianism
and Beyond. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press;
Dasgupta, Partha. 2007. “Commentary: The Stern Review’s Economics of
Climate Change.” National Institute Economic Review,
199: 4–70.]
The
Bottom Line?
In the simplest of possible terms, burning up fossil fuel
reserves, which took millions of years to lay down, in 3 - 500 years is
clearly going to affect substantially the planet's carbon balances and
cycles. These affects are practically certain to affect the planet's
bio-physical characteristics, and very probably for the worse compared
to our known histories and experience.
Action (or not) on Climate Change is (in no particular order):
- a choice about the future versus
the present,
especially
about our childrens' and their childrens' life chances and
opportunities ("the enormously
unsettling uncertainty of a small, but essentially unknown (and perhaps
unknowable), probability of a planet Earth that in hindsight we allowed
to get wrecked on our watch.",
Weitzman, below, p722). Inter-temporal choice (decisions and
actions with effects across time) under
extreme
uncertainty (hardly
even reducible to any sort of 'probability') is at the heart of the
issue.
- a choice about what precautions to take (what insurance to hold),
rather than a choice between alternative productive investments (which
is a perspective that, perhaps, better reflects the rich point of view
rather than that of the less advantaged).
- a choice about distribution
- the spread of costs and benefits amongst people with very different
capacities and capabilities to cope and adjust. Who is affected and how
they can cope is critical. It is, perhaps, commonly assumed that the
richest 20% of the planet's population will be able to cope, albeit at
a cost, with more or less anything that CC can throw at us - we are
rich, inventive and ugly enough to take care of ourselves whatever the
circumstances (- hence the speculative/wealth accumulation
perspective). But this clearly does not hold for the other 80%,
who are likely to be much more concerned about the possibility of
catastrophe).
- a Social
(collective) choice about a public good (bad) at the global level (our global climate system,
with which we and our children will all have to live) - which requires,
at bottom, a common world
view and associated action, which is, therefore, necessarily a political choice, and
clearly requires global leadership (pace
Nordhaus above) and global governance.
So?
- Some sort of 'discounting'
is inevitable (1), in order to make
comparisons between the welfare of future generations versus that of
the present - "the interest rate" matters. But what rate? Or, is it
even sensible to think that one single rate (or just 3 over 300 years)
is satisfactory? In particular, appeals to 'evidence' from
present apparent decisions about what to save (and invest), and what to
spend are largely irrelevant to this question, which relates
specifically to inter-generational choice concerning, especially, the
future generations' scope for action or capabilities. ["It must be emphasized that the variables
analyzed here (the Ramsey equation) apply to comparisons over the welfare of
different generations and not to individual preferences. The individual
rate of time preference, risk preference, and utility functions do not,
in principle at least, enter into the discussion or arguments at all.
An individual may have high time preference, or perhaps double
hyperbolic discounting, or negative discounting, but this has no
necessary connection with how social decisions weight different
generations. Similar cautions apply to the consumption elasticity."
Nordhaus, below, p 691]. I conclude that the disputes about the
appropriate choices of values in the Ramsey equation are largely beside
the point. Indeed, the framing of the debate in terms of the Ramsey
equation is, I suggest, more confusing than illuminating.
- This conclusion is re-inforced by (2) - the choice here is
about precautionary 'investment' behaviour,
rather than speculative
(accumulation) behaviour - which strongly suggests that we are not here concerned with
so-called 'consumption smoothing' (wealth accumulation) calculus, but
much more about 'catastrophe' insurance under extreme uncertainty -
what does the extreme case look like, and how badly do we need to try
and avoid it? Here, Weitzman (below) points out that concern over a
highly uncertain future substantially alters the necessary calculus. ["The overarching problem is that we lack a
commonly accepted usable economic framework for dealing with these
kinds of thick-tailed extreme disasters,
whose probability
distributions are inherently difficult to estimate (which is why the
tails must be thick in the first place). But I think progress begins by
recognizing that the hidden core meaning of Stern vs. Critics may be
about tails vs. middle and about catastrophe insurance vs. consumption
smoothing.", Weitzman, below, p 723].
- So, I conclude that SR is 'near enough for farm work' - its
concentration on the more extreme possibilities of damage from CC is
justifiable on precautionary grounds, as is the choice of relatively
low discount rates, while the additional weight given to the less
advantaged is also justifiable (not least because these people can be
expected, one way or another, to try and hold the "west" to account,
and the ways they choose, given that they have little to lose, may
prove extremely uncomfortable to the 'west'.) But, perhaps, SR is
overly optimistic about the costs of doing something, especially
immediately.
- But, the need to do something, and to start doing something
rather strongly positive now, seems inescapable. Which means that
(4) is the key problem. Kyoto is a start, but only a small
start. The Bali Roadmap
is the next and important step. Carbon
trading (see below) offers a
good chance of generating the appropriate signals and incentives to
reduce GHG emissions and minimise the costs of mitigation, as well as
providing a mechanism for assistance to developing countries to cope
and adapt. For it to work requires a substantial increase in global
governance. Without this, the prospects for the future of the human
race must remain in doubt. But it also requires that the global
cap of carbon emissions is set at the right level - too high and it
will be useless, too low and it will be excessively costly -
- A T3 Tax:
In the light of these arguments, the McKitrick (op cit., p 15ff, and also here
) proposal makes very considerable sense -a T3 Tax: impose a
carbon tax whose value is tied to the mean temperature of the tropical
troposphere, If the mean tropospheric temperature starts going
up, the T3 tax would go up, forcing emissions down. If the tropical
troposphere does not warm up, the tax won’t go up, nor should
it. McKitrick suggests setting this tax initially at 20 times the
average TTTemperature, which would mean the current tax rate at about
$5/tC (about $1/barrel oi) Ross McKitrik says: "The IPCC predicts a
warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the
surface, implying about 0.2 to 1.2 degrees C per decade in the tropical
troposphere under greenhouse forcing scenarios. That implies the tax
will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a more aggressive
schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the
upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach over $200 per tonne
of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon emission reductions and a global
shift to non-carbon energy sources." (quoted from R. McKitrik, 2007)
Meanwhile, remembering that Stern reported
in October, 2006, having been commissioned to report in July,
2005, world oil prices have since done a lot of Stern's
suggested action since then, and will continue to do so, so long as
world oil prices remain closr to $100/barrel than to $40/barrel.
Source: Thisismoney.co.uk
Notice: 2005 - 6 price is about $55/barrel.
Stern's estimate of the cost of climate change (if we do nothing) is
about equivalent to a tax of $85/barrel ($315/tC). In other words, we
could afford to pay up to $130/barrel and be better off, so long as the
higher price for oil actually reduces the damage from climate change.
Other estimates are lower, at about $200/tC or an equivalent tax on oil
of $47/barrel.
The recent fall in oil prices, from a peak of $145 to $80 reflects the
market's view of the likelihood of a global recession (and hence
reduced oil consumption), perhaps coupled with some response already to
high oil prices in terms of reduced consumption per $GDP.
The 'first' major oil price spike in the early 1970s,
following the formation of OPEC in response to the Yom Kippur war, and
the US support of Israel, was partly responsible for triggering a
sustained period of inflation (25% + in the UK and US for more than 2
years) and consequent rise in unemployment - the stagflation of the
1970s. But it also triggered a substantial improvement in the rate at
which the world consumes fossil fuels (and thus emits carbon) - see Independent
Summary for Policy Makers (ISPM) of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
(p.11) - ISPM-2, which relates to fossil-fuel carbon emissions, and
does not include GHG emissions from simply breathing (about 1 tonne per
person per year), or from the production of food and fibre resulting in
land use changes (about 0.2tC/person/year) - both of which are clearly
related to the size of the global population. In short, at
present, virtually all the increase in carbon emissions are the
result of more people on the planet, rather than more profligate use by
each of us.
See source)

References
W. Nordhaus, "Review of Stern Review", Journal of Economic Literature,
XLV, Sept, 2007, 686 - 702
M. Weitzman, "Review of Stern Review", Journal of Economic Literature, XLV, Sept., 2007, 703 - 724.
R.S.J. Tol & G. W. Yohe, "Review of Stern Review", World Economics, 7, (4), Oct - Dec,
2006, 233 - 250
R. M. Carter et al, and I. Byatt et al., "The Stern Review: a Dual
Critique", World Economics, 7,
(4), Oct - Dec, 2006, 165 - 232.
K. Arrow, "Global Climate Change: a Challenge to Policy", The Economist's Voice,
www.bepress.com/ev, June, 2007
Carbon Accounting & Pricing
An aside on Biofuels:
The pitfalls of Carbon
Accounting (the practice of accounting for the
carbon, (and other greenhouse gas) emissions so as to be able to take
steps to limit these emissions) are, perhaps, well demonstrated in the
short history of biofuels.
Initially, the general enthusiasm (reflected in various government
targets for replacing fossil fuels with biofuels) was apparently
predicated on the notion that the carbon released by burning biofuels
would be re-captured by the plants producing the fuel, hence producing
an essentially 'carbon-neutral' footprint - following farily
conventional 'carbon accounting' rules.
BUT:
- the plants now used for fuel are replacing plants which would
have been growing anyway, and absorbing carbon which may or may not
have been released
- growing, harvesting and processing biofuels all produce carbon
and other greenhouse gases - the processes may well more than offset
the apparent carbon saving.
- use of existing crops for fuel, rather than something else, will
affect the prices of these crops, and hence the incentives to producers
and the costs to consumers.
More intelligent assessment of the biofuels argument (actually provided
by the market) strongly suggests
that in many cases the actual carbon savings are, in fact, trivially
small at best and strongly negative at worst - and, furthermore, tend,
through the price and commodity market effects, to both increase the
costs of food, especially to the poorest, and also lead to stronger
incentives to convert uncultivated land and natural resources (forests)
into production - destroying existing carbon sinks. In
short, partial accounting of carbon flows, without pursuing the full
ramifications of alternatives and counter-factual
situations (what would otherwise occur) is bound to be both incomplete
and potentially misleading, whatever the conventions adopted for such
accounting. Nevertheless, there are still some considerable
enthusiasts. However, as a recent CARD report from
the University of Iowa (Iowa Ag Review, Fall 2007, 13 (4) concludes (my
emphasis added):
"Policy
Choices: If, as seems likely, we are entering a
future where policy incentives will be skewed toward rewarding
production activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then
it is important for the U.S. biofuels industry to take
steps to ensure that they are providing low-carbon fuels.
The key factors determining carbon emissions for corn-based
ethanol are (1) whether coal or natural gas is used to
power the ethanol plant, (2) whether distillers grains are dried
or sold wet, and (3) whether expansion of corn acreage comes
mainly from reduced acreage of lower-value crops or if idled land
is brought into production. The first of these
factors is largely under the control of ethanol plant
owners. Not drying distillers grains is feasible only if
large beef feedlots or dairies are located near the ethanol
plants. State and local policies that encourage strategic siting
of cattle operations can greatly enhance ethanol’s low-carbon
credentials. The last factor is beyond the control of industry.
Conversion rates of idled U.S. cropland can be reduced by
increasing domestic conservation incentives, such as CRP rental
rates. But this policy decision creates a dilemma: if U.S. land
is kept idle through higher conservation payments, there will be
a larger impact on crop prices and a greater incentive for
farmers in other countries to expand production. If this overseas production were to
involve conversion of substantial amounts of idle land that
would otherwise never be brought into production, then U.S.
corn ethanol likely would not be able to lay claim to the
title of low-carbon fuel."
A subsequent working paper (Implied
Objectives of U.S. Biofuel Subsidies, Ofir D. Rubin, Miguel
Carriquiry, Dermot J. Hayes, February 2008 [08-WP 459])
concludes, inter alia:
"Biofuel subsidies in the United States have been justified on the
following grounds: energy independence, a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, improvements in rural development related to biofuel plants,
and farm income support. The 2007 energy act emphasizes the first two
objectives. In this study, we quantify the costs and benefits that
different biofuels provide. We consider the first two objectives
separately and show that each can be achieved with a lower social cost
than that of the current policy. Then, we show that there is no
evidence to disprove that the primary objective of biofuel policy is to
support farm income."
See, also, OECD Policy Brief: Biofuels
for Transport: Policies and Possibilities (Nov. 2007)
And the FAO, State of Food
and Agriculture, 2008: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and
Opportunities.
Carbon Accounting?
Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA): LCA is supposed to conduct a fair
assessment of the environmental impacts of a product taking into
account all of the processes throughout the product’s lifespan,
including the extraction of raw material, the manufacturing processes
that convert raw material into the product, and the utilization and
disposal of the product.
Consider a country that expands production of an agricultural feedstock
to produce biofuels. To understand how biofuels affect GHG emissions
requires analysis of the GHG contents of all the inputs used to
produce the feedstock as well as the inputs used to create the fuel
from the feedstock. This is as far as most LCAs go.
But expanded production of the feedstock does not just magically
happen. Either:
- current uses of the feedstock must be reduced to free up supply
for production of biofuels (in which case, GHG emissions associated
with the current use can be credited toward the biofuels because they
are no longer being emitted. However, if an alternative product is used
as a substitute for the
current use of the feedstock, then the GHG implications of increased
production of the substitute should also be counted as a debit).
- Or, additional
production must occur, in which case the implications of expanded
production of the feedstock need to be
accounted for, including changes in crop acreage, production practices,
and whether new land is brought into production. Furthermore, if
changes in land use in the biofuels-expanding region result in
changed land-use decisions in other regions, then the GHG implications
in these regions may have to be accounted for, depending on the
definition of the system
boundary in an analysis.
The Aldersgate Group has
recently produced a report: "Carbon Costs:
Corporate Carbon Accounting & Reporting Report", which, according
to the Environmental
Association for Universities and Colleges, "argues that a lack of a
standardised carbon accounting
system is impeding the UK Government’s long term goals of reducing
emissions and creating a low carbon economy. It finds that very few
FTSE 350 companies have credible carbon
reporting mechanisms in place, and those companies that do could not be
compared because they calculated emissions differently."
So What for Climate Change?
A World Carbon Tax? Increasing the price (cost) of emitting
GHGs by taxing activities which produce them is the most obvious answer
to the global externality of global warming. Taxing emissions would,
effectively, internalise the externality, and require everyone to take
account of their effects on the climate in all their actions and
activities. But, setting such a tax at an appropriate level to apply
world-wide is, perhaps, practically impossible. As the Stern Review says: "However,
the international harmonisation of carbon taxes can be extremely
difficult in practice. Seeking an internationally uniform tax
would preclude national discretion about ways of implementing
environmental goals; and this may conflict with national sovereignty
and the practical politics of domestic policy formation. There are also
practical and political challenges in creating large-scale flows to
poor countries, to support an equitable distribution of effort, through
public budgets alone." (SR, Chap 22, p 470).
Carbon Trading? A possibly more
practical alternative is to agree a total global target for GHG
emissions as a global limit - which should be agreed for the
forseeable future. Take, for example, the SR presumption that we
need to aim at reducing global emissions to 20GtCO2e
by the end of this century (SR, Summary for Policymakers, Figure 2, p
xii), from a present total of 40Gt rising to 60Gt by 2020.
Suppose all countries can agree (through progressing the Bali Roadmap)
on this overall objective. Countries now need to agree to a
distribution of these global targets over time amongst themselves - not
an easy task, but perhaps more realisable than agreeing a global carbon
tax rate, again possible through progressing the Roadmap.
The Principles: Suppose,
as a starting point, we distribute the 2020 target of <60GtCO2e
across countries according to a simple average global per capita target
times each country's population (approx. 9t/head). ("The ‘growth-needs’ approach applied
simplistically suggests distribution on an equal per capita basis"
(SR, Ch 22, p 473/4). We need also to agree how these limits will be
progressively reduced to achieve the target of 20Gt by 2100 (2.2t/hd at
a projected world population of 9 billion). We need to reduce per head
emissions by 7t/head over this century (effectively, given the
time necessary to reach agreement, over 70 - 80 years, or approximately
by 1 tonne per head per ten years). Each country would agree to
the
associated limits on national emissions, progressively reducing as we
approach 2100, and each would be obliged to take the necessary steps to
achieve these targets (subject to international sanctions of various
sorts - such as monetary fines or trade retaliations - and subject to
an international authority charged with monitoring emissions and
developing/implementing a common system of carbon accounting). One
obvious (though not necessarily simple) way any country might do this
is to further allocate their national quota to (in principle) everyone
in the country (establishing a carbon ration for everyone in the
country).
As well as being required to file a tax return every year, each
household could, under this general principle, be required to file a
carbon account every year as well (the organisational and institutional
problems should not be under-estimated!), In effect, every person has a
carbon ration book, and must make their carbon account balance (subject
to penalty). If they exceed their ration, they must get (pay for) some
additional ration. If they have spare rations, they can sell them
to those who need them.
One can imagine a global market in carbon rations - with the rich
buying from the poor, and establishing a market price for carbon in the
process, which would reflect the costs of mitigating emissions to
achieve the global and associated national targets, and encourage
greater efficiency in using carbon.
The Practice? Of course,
such a system would be impossibly difficult (expensive) to contemplate
in practice (except, perhaps, by the end of this century).
However, the bulk of at least CO2
emissions are generated (in the first instance) by power companies and
fuel distributors (as well as by those responsible for the burning or
exploitation of standing forests, wetlands etc.). It is not
beyond possibility that these relatively few and very large players
(businesses) should be required to meet their 'share' of the global and
national quotas and to balance their 'share' of the associated
rations. Once established, these companies would be expected to
trade their emission rights (quota), and so establish a price for
carbon reflecting the costs of achieving the targets, and encouraging
the minimisation of these costs. International emissions trading is
already allowed for and sanctioned under the Kyoto protocol (e.g SR, Ch
22, p 476, which also outlines other emissions trading systems in
operation already, including the EU's emission trading scheme (which
fell foul of the basic error when first introduced that the overall
quota limits were set too high, with the result that the emissions
quotas were virtually valueless - there was no price to be paid for
carbon emission rights). As Stern says:
"A global quantity constraint can be
used to drive intergovernmental trading of emissions quotas, and this
has already been adopted within the current multilateral framework, the
Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, as we explained in Chapter 14, a key benefit
of trading schemes for emissions quotas is that they allow the
cost-effectiveness (via a common price) and distributional equity of
action (via flows based on quota allocations) to be managed separately
but simultaneously. In a global
and comprehensive system of quota trading, the initial
allocation of national limits on emissions affects the distributional
equity of the scheme, but not the equilibrium distribution of emissions
reductions, the market-determined carbon price or the costs of
abatement." (SR, Chap 22, p 471)
"There is no single formula that is likely to capture in a satisfactory
way all relevant aspects of an equitable distribution of effort between
countries across the various dimensions and criteria – but the criteria
tend to point in similar directions" (rich countries taking a greater
share of the costs of mitigation, but not necessarily the same
arrangements or rules for sharing those costs). (SR, Chap 22, p 473 - 4)
"Nevertheless, the concepts underlying the Protocol – in particular,
the aspiration to create a single, efficient carbon price across
countries through the use of emissions trading and the recognition that
mechanisms are required to make finance and technology available to
poor countries on the basis of equity – are very valuable. These are
elements to be strengthened within any future regime for action on
climate change." (SR, Ch. 22, p 478)
How might we get there from here?
This is the critical problem, from this perspective. The next 20 years
are vitally important - which is the time it will take to get the
planet's house in order if we are to meet this global challenge. It is
in this sense, I suggest, that the urgency pervading the Stern Review
(in contrast to the conventional economic prescription of starting
slowly and 'ramping up') is to be understood - as a political problem
rather than a strictly economic problem - the need to convince
politicians, and their constituents, of the urgent need to (plan to) do
something serious.
So, agree on the above outline - essentially the 2030 - 2100 global
totals and distribution of carbon quota, and the principles of carbon
trading, and then agree on a phased transition to this system from now
until 2030 - by, perhaps, an initial quota allocation which progresses
from the indicative Kyoto allocations to the 2030 "equitable"
allocations, which would allow some growth ceilings for developing
countries, but also some hard limits for the developed world. So long
as these limits in the developed world are hard enough to generate a
serious and increasing carbon price, the developed world and its
businesses can be relied upon to develop the necessary carbon trading
systems and practices, and the necessary common carbon accounting
systems that go with them. Once in place, these can then readily
be extended to the rest of the world.
But, without a common aim and strategy being agreed, nothing sensible
will happen. It is getting very close to being too late to do
anything serious. We stand in danger of wrecking the planet, and our
descendants (if we have any who survive) will not forgive us that.
What Next?
The UK Government is introducing a Climate
Change Act, and has committed the UK to carbon reduction (via the
Energy White Paper, 2007) under its Carbon
Reduction Committment, and now requires all government
appraisals to account for the costs of carbon: "We use the shadow price of carbon (SPC) to
value the increase or decrease
in emissions of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a proposed
policy. Put simply, the SPC captures the damage costs of climate change
caused by each additional tonne of greenhouse gas emitted, expressed as
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
for ease of comparison. The new
guidance brings the value of carbon included in appraisals
into line with the Stern Review’s assessment of the social cost of
carbon. The SPC is different from the previously used social cost of
carbon (SCC) in that it takes more account of uncertainty and is based
on a stabilisation trajectory."This paper represents the current (Feb,
2008) position
of the UK government on carbon pricing in government related
assessments of projects and programmes, and includes a schedule of
indicative carbon
emission shadow prices to be attached to carbon emissions
from
2000 to 2050. These begin at £26/tCO2e in 2008 and increase to
£60/tCO2e by 2050. These figures, @ $1.8/£, and
3.7tC/tCO2e, to $173/tC, (or $45/barrel) in 2008, to $400/tC
($108/barrel) in 2050. We
had better get used to higher priced oil, and also to higher priced
food and water.
BUT James Lovelock strongly
believes that we are living in genuinely chaotic systems, which are
already far-from-equilibrium, and that all attempts to model these
systems, for forecasting or projection purposes especially, are futile
and bound to be wrong. Climate change is now inevitable, no matter what
we do - there is no going back once we pass the 'tipping point' or
'phase change', any more than it is possible to go back once you have
fallen off a cliff, or begun to roll down a progressively steeper hill
- there comes a point when it is no longer possible even to hang on. "In
a sense, since we are part of the whole system, you can say we are the
consciousness of the planet. We are part of it, we can never consider
ourselves as something separate. To think we could be its stewards is
grotesque. We will be struggling against it. We've got to make peace
while we're still strong enough to make terms, and not just a rabble. I
see Kyoto as like Munich. It's an attempt to buy time before the real
struggle starts." (Guardian
Interview, 2005) So, all we can do is prepare for the worst -
which means getting as much energy as we can while we can (including,
especially, nuclear energy) and, possibly, slowing the processes down a
little (by, possibly, polluting the upper atmosphere again with sulphur
in jet fuel to reduce the warming effect).
Comments and Questions to
David Harvey?
Back to DRH Lecture Note page